alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 1 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 2 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 3 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 4 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 5 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00281-EAS-MRA Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/05/12 Page: 6 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T20:02:03-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
 Section 1350 Certification
  In connection with the annual report of Dixie Foods International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K /A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended August 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert  E. Jordan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 3, 2014
by:
/s/ Robert E. JordanRobert E. Jordan, President(Principal executive officer and principal accounting officer)
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Charles P. Hadeed, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer of Transcat,Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transcat, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  February 11, 2008 /s/ Charles P. Hadeed   Charles P. Hadeed   Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2279

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jeremy Edward Nebeker

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: November 27, 2012

Filed: December 3, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Edward Nebeker directly appeals after he pled guilty to attempting to

receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1), and the
district court sentenced him to 135 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised

1

release. Nebeker’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

Nebeker pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. The plea agreement

contained an appeal waiver that included within its scope challenges to the sentence

based on unreasonableness. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal

waiver is generally enforceable if appeal falls within scope of waiver, both waiver

and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement

of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). In addition, we have reviewed

the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we

have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about

procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
October 26, 1971

No. 71-37

#### Nathaniel Holmes, Jr., PFC and Bernard Tucker, PVT, U. S. Army v Melvin Laird, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense; Robert F. Froehlke, as Secretary of the United States Department of the Army; MG D. V. Rattan, Commanding General, 8th Infantry Division; MG Roland M. Gleszer, Commanding General, Military District of Washington; COL James F. Senechal, Staff Judge Advocate, Military District of Washington; MAJ Ronald S. Durian, Commanding Officer, Center Confinement Facility, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and CPT Peter J. Shea, Provost Marshal, Headquarters, Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D. C. 20315.

On consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Other Appropriate Relief, the Respondents’ Reply to Order to Show Cause and Petitioners’ Rejoinder to Reply from which it appears that Petitioners are in confinement in the United States Army Center, Confinement Facility, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, under charges originating within the Command of 8th Infantry Division located in the Federal Republic of Germany and that Petitioners’ transfer to Germany has been stayed by order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending determination of appeal from a decision in a United States District Court dismissing Petitioners’ application for injunctive relief, and that Petitioners’ claim of denial of a speedy trial presents no circumstances justifying grant of extraordinary relief (Lozinski v Wetherill, 21 USCMA 52, 44 CMR 106 (1971)), particularly because the delays complained of appear to have been caused by Petitioners’ legally permissible efforts to prevent their return to their assigned unit, i.e. 8th Infantry Division.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 26th day of October 1971,

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for failure to set forth a basis for the relief requested.
### Regulatory Evaluation

DocketNo.FAA- J015

- 

# \LfJ.d.. · 80 

# IL/- (V jl-/j · - 

# I 

# ;zS

- A D Directorate Identifier:**~** 

## If

you make changes to the values in th e table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. 

## If they do not , click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection , propeller , appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include on condition costs here access, testing , (@$85 /h parts) Registered

### '3~0**fd** and close-up) our) Products 

### Inspection llf lv $4. 165.0 $t;We j $5
. 365
.00 

### 17 .;**s~oo** 

### C).'{**~** 0 

# e...v.**~IJ! ·a**  $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 I 

# ' filtn..:..· $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0
.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0
.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0
.00 

## s 0
. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0
.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0
.00 

## s 0.00 $ 0
.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0
.00 $ 0.00 

## s 0
.00 $ 0.00 $ 0
.00 

## s 0
.00 The known number of products in compliance: 0 Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $91,205 Costs covered under warranty 

## (ifknown) $0 On-Condition Costs: Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection , (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and closev'

replacement) up)**~tb 1.** **~\0 ~**  

### '5**~** 

### ,, J,..-L-'l**~- "**  

## lion 'Th 

### lH l-1 J!l ,o.A9 $ 0
.00**~** $ 0.00

I $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action " ?

# ~ YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant?

# ~ YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer.

# ~ YESO**NO~** 

### Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

# ~ YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation:
EXHIBIT 33.2




MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE




Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:




Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”)




Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1 122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).




Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2010 (the “Period”).




With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:




•
The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.




•
The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.




•
Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.




KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.




CITIBANK, N.A.By: /s/ Karen Montbach



Its: Managing Director







Dated:  February 28, 2011
----

----

| Tel-Aviv, Israel | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman                                 |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| March 12, 2013   | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)                           |
|             | A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited |

| Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel, P.O Box 452 Tel-Aviv 61003                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.co.il                                                                                        |
|   Kesselman & Kesselman is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity |

----

----
Jarad	Wright

1511	Melody	Ridge	Court	NE

Conyers,	GA	30012

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

I	am	requesting	Section	333	Exemption	in	this	petition.	I	am	seeking	use	of	my	

drone	or	Unmanned	Aerial	Vehicles	(UAVs)	for	commercial	purposes.	I	am	starting	a	

photography	business	and	would	like	to	utilize	my	drone	for	said	services.	

I	will	have	a	very detailed	pre-flight	inspection	and	will	monitor	all	maintenance	and	

repair	as	needed.	The	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	remote	operates	at	2.4	GHz.	

I	am	currently	very	well	aware	of	all	current	regulations	concerning	UAVs	and	will	

maintain	a	“safety-first” approach	whenever	I	am	flying	the	drone.	I	also	have	tools	

in	place	that	will	help	me	stay	current	with	“No	fly	zones”	and	other	information	

concerning	UAVs	as	they	are	updated.	I	intend	to	never	fly	the	drone	over	300	feet	

or	91	meters.	I	also	intend	to	keep	the	drone	in	visible	sight	so	I	don’t	have	any	

issues	with	other	objects	or	people.	

I	do	not	plan	on	operating	in	any	proximity	to	airports	unless	otherwise	requested	

or	given	explicit	permission	by	the	FAA.

I	think	the	exemption	here	in	Georgia	would	be	in	the	public	interests,	as	it	would	

add	another	service	to	the	boosting	Atlanta	economy.	I	feel	Atlanta	and	its	

surrounding	area,	are	very	behind	when	it	comes	to	new	technology	so	this	would	

help	raise	awareness.	

My	goal	is	to	record	events,	weddings,	and	work	with	services	dealing	with	relief	

when	using	the	drone.	This	shall	create	timeless	photos,	build	excitement	and	assist	

in	getting	better	shots	of	projects	that	may	be	hazardous	or	dangerous	to	the	people	

working	to	fix	them.

The	Drone	is	a DJI	Phantom	3	Professional.	

I	appreciate	you	reading	my	petition	and	I	hope	that	you’re	able	to	grant	me	

exemption.

Thanks,	

Jarad	Wright
# C_2007223EN.01001702.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2007 — Keppenne v Commission

(Case T-411/04) (1)

1

(2007/C 223/29)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "Neil.Eisner@dot.gov" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "Steve.Wood@dot.gov" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>, Rob in Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA,

"james.tamm@dot.gov" < james.tamm@dot.gov>, "rebecca.yoon@dot.gov" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "Joanne.Petrie@dot.gov" <Joanne.Petrie@dot.gov>

Date: 11/29/2010 03:17 PM

Subject: Summary of interagency working comments on draft NOI under EO 12866 review

Please find attached a summary of interagency working comments received on the draft supplemental

NOI currently under EO 12866 review. They are for your consideration and subject to further policy

review.

Thanks.Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Supplemental Notice of Intent under EO 12866

Review

Below is a summary of interagency working comments received during interagency review of the draft

Supplemental Notice of Intent under EO 12866. They are for your consideration and subject to further

policy review.

1) The draft raises the issue of California’s ZEV mandate but provides no plans for addressing any

potential conflict with the “one national program” approach. Interagency commenters suggest

adding language to explain that the agencies will engage with California on their standards,

including exploring the issues related to the ZEV mandate, with the goal of developing a

consistent national program.

2) Interagency commenter suggests adding a brief discussion about coordination with California

generally, including the importance of input from California during the rulemaking process.

3) Interagency commenter recommends that the agencies include a brief discussion of

jobs/employment impacts and how the agencies will evaluate and/or consider them during the

rulemaking process.

4) There is no discussion of criteria pollutant standards in the notice. Interagency commenters

suggest using similar language to the October NOI about coordinating any criteria pollutant

tailpipe rules with the GHG standards.

5) Pg. 14 second full paragraph

– first sentence (“Environmental groups commented...”) says that

environmental groups do not want the agencies to constrain stringency levels in the 2017

‐ 2025

proposal. Interagency commenters recommend that this sentence be modified to say that the

groups do not want the agencies to constrain the stringency levels “ at this time. “ Please include

this change.

6) Pg. 5 mentions that not all costs were considered in the TAR. Interagency commenter suggests

including a sentence that the TAR also did not quantify social cost of carbon benefits and other

social benefits.

7) In “Section III,” interagency commenter requests that the agencies include language that they

will conduct additional analyses to evaluate key design element and flexibility mechanisms,

including the treatment of lifecycle emissions.
State of Israel

Ministry of Transport

Civil Aviation Authority

Page 1 of 1

G: \ AIRW

- EN \ AD \ AD G200 \ AD 32

- 11

- 10

- 13 \ AD 32

- 11

- 10

- 13.docx AD 32

- 11

- 10

- 13

October 31 , 2011

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

This Airworthiness Directive, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in accordance with the

Israeli Aviation Regulations (ANR) applies to an aircraft for which our records list you as the

registered owner. It affects aviation safety and requires your immediate attention. No person may

operate an aircraft, to which an Airworthiness Directive appli es, except in accordance with that

Directive.

APPLIES TO : Gulfstream Aerospace L.P

. models GALAXY and G200 aircraft

, serial numbers

004

- 2 5 0 certificated in any category.

SUBJECT: I nspection and modification of the Main Land ing Gear (MLG) B rake A ssemblies

W ear I ndicating P ins.

REASON: T wo G200 operators experienced degraded brake performance during landing.

Subsequent investigation revealed that in both cases the brake wear pins showed

re maining life, b u t the brakes were worn to the minimum pad thickness specified

in the Brake Ass embly Component Maintenance Manual (CMM). It was found

out that pins of incorrect length were installed during brake ass embl y overhaul.

When the brake pads are fully worn without indication, loss of braking power is

expected, possibly causing runway overruns. This constitutes an unsafe condition.

ACTION: Unless previously accomplished in accordance with Gulfstream G200 Service

Bulletin 200

- 32

- 389R1 or later revisions thereof:

1. Determine the lengths of the we ar indicating pins of all the brake assemblies,

as detailed in the SB

. 2. If the length of the pin s is within the limits specified in SB 200

- 32

- 389R1

, perform a Normal Brake Wear Inspection per the AMM

. 3. If the wear indicator pin is too long, shorten the pin as required by the SB

. P erfo rm a Normal Brake Wear Inspection per the AMM

.

COMPLIANCE : Compliance is required no later than 19 December 2011.

EFFECTIVE DATE : November 7 , 2011

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nathan Kletshevsky

, CAAI,

Airworthiness Dept., Engineering Branch, P.O. Box 1101 , Airport City , Israel 701 0 0.

Telephone: 972

- 3

- 9774 539 , Fax: 972

- 3

- 9774592, e

- mail: kletshn @mot.gov.il
Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

       In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa A. Herbert, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.